Listen now | This week’s guest, journalist David Wallace-Wells, speaks with us about the defining issue facing humanity, climate change — and the task of getting our government to treat it as such. Currently, fossil fuel corporations are free to chase endless profit at the expense of our health and safety, and our planet’s future.
Anyone who starts off with carbon dioxide and climate change, then switches to pollution and health / deaths, while just saying "carbon" is not being honest and mudding the conversation. Criteria pollutants are a thing and have a definition and strict emissions regulation, green house gases are not pollution and shouldnt be called pollution. If you are going to say that, then you have to say water vapor is pollution. The EPA was forced to call it pollution so that it could regulate emissions of it. There was a case of a few states suing them about future sea level rise, in which they lost and that started this "CO2 is the same as pollution".
CO2 (.042% of the atmosphere) absorbes the earths infared radiation band around 14-16 micro meters. Water vapor (0.5-3% of the atmosphere) does a lot broader band of the radiation spectrum, and there is an overlap between the two. There is lots of debate over the effect CO2 level has on the atmospheres temperature because of this overlap. With out these two molecules in our atmosphere the earth would be much colder, average temperature below freezing and not near 60*F.
This doesn't even get into clouds, which are liquid or ice, and thier effect on the balance of incoming sun raditation and outgoing earth radiation. Then in a computer model, where you can only define a block of 60 miles on one side, there is no way to propely model the clouds as they change drastically on a much smaller distance scale.
There is so much doubt to how the climate is going to change in responce to human co2 emissions, that really no one can predict it with any reasonable certainty. We should look at renewable energy sources, but not because we ae tring to stabilize the earths climate.
When you really look into what gives areas of the earth their climate, you can break it down to three zones based on latitude lines. The polar(always cold), the tropics(always hot), and the temperate(4 seasons). The latitude lines are the antartic and artic circle, and the tropics of capricorn and cancer. In these climate zones you have dry areas and wet areas. You then have elevation, which has an effect on temperature, not because of just CO2, but because the atmosphere is thinner. Some will break it down even further in to sub tropic and sub polar zones, but that is what I think starts to confuse a lot of people about climate and shifts in climate.
Steve Koonin was just on Joe Rogan and he has a good book about it, going into the science translated to the summary for policy makers.
Patrick Moore also has a good book about how its always invisble things you can't go out and measure-test for yourself are usually used to scare the public.
Human wet bulb temperature is 95F at 100% humidity. Continuous expose (6hours) to these temperatures would lead to heat stroke, heat related illness, or death for most healthy humans.
Anyone who starts off with carbon dioxide and climate change, then switches to pollution and health / deaths, while just saying "carbon" is not being honest and mudding the conversation. Criteria pollutants are a thing and have a definition and strict emissions regulation, green house gases are not pollution and shouldnt be called pollution. If you are going to say that, then you have to say water vapor is pollution. The EPA was forced to call it pollution so that it could regulate emissions of it. There was a case of a few states suing them about future sea level rise, in which they lost and that started this "CO2 is the same as pollution".
CO2 (.042% of the atmosphere) absorbes the earths infared radiation band around 14-16 micro meters. Water vapor (0.5-3% of the atmosphere) does a lot broader band of the radiation spectrum, and there is an overlap between the two. There is lots of debate over the effect CO2 level has on the atmospheres temperature because of this overlap. With out these two molecules in our atmosphere the earth would be much colder, average temperature below freezing and not near 60*F.
This doesn't even get into clouds, which are liquid or ice, and thier effect on the balance of incoming sun raditation and outgoing earth radiation. Then in a computer model, where you can only define a block of 60 miles on one side, there is no way to propely model the clouds as they change drastically on a much smaller distance scale.
There is so much doubt to how the climate is going to change in responce to human co2 emissions, that really no one can predict it with any reasonable certainty. We should look at renewable energy sources, but not because we ae tring to stabilize the earths climate.
When you really look into what gives areas of the earth their climate, you can break it down to three zones based on latitude lines. The polar(always cold), the tropics(always hot), and the temperate(4 seasons). The latitude lines are the antartic and artic circle, and the tropics of capricorn and cancer. In these climate zones you have dry areas and wet areas. You then have elevation, which has an effect on temperature, not because of just CO2, but because the atmosphere is thinner. Some will break it down even further in to sub tropic and sub polar zones, but that is what I think starts to confuse a lot of people about climate and shifts in climate.
Steve Koonin was just on Joe Rogan and he has a good book about it, going into the science translated to the summary for policy makers.
Patrick Moore also has a good book about how its always invisble things you can't go out and measure-test for yourself are usually used to scare the public.
Love David Wallace-Wells,
Krystal your a fucking whore and I hope you burn in hell
Human wet bulb temperature is 95F at 100% humidity. Continuous expose (6hours) to these temperatures would lead to heat stroke, heat related illness, or death for most healthy humans.
I think we going to find that the impacts of 1.5C are worse once we experience them on a global average. The climate wars are coming.